next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think that generally those concerned too much with new monetization models would make more money if they were instead concerned by making their games better and just selling them in a traditional way

[True Valhalla]

I know from your previous posts that you're very set on the traditional model Paul, but the traditional model is not the best grossing one. If you're trying to make a living, why bother making an amazing game if you can't monetize it to the fullest?

Monetization deserves as much attention as crafting a game worth selling. It's just another cog in the machine. I tend to think taking the traditional route is the lazy option in today's market.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i said a traditional model, not the traditional model. but assuming by "the" traditional model you mean selling it, i'm not sure what you mean by it not being the best grossing one -- i think pretty much whatever measure you use, selling games has made more than any other type of monetization model. this goes both for AAA games and indie games, too -- almost all successful indie game developers who are making a living through indie games sell their games (e.g. edmund mcmillen, jon blow, jeff vogel, cliffski, hanako, notch, could name dozens more). so if you're trying to say that those people would have made more money if they didn't sell their games, that's a pretty anti-common sense idea that you'd need to give some reasoning for

another thing is, most of the people in this forum (almost all?) make single-player downloadable games for the PC. i can't think of any single-player downloadable game for the PC which has made a significant amount of money using any monetization model other than selling it. i don't think doing anything other than selling games works except in rare cases like these:

- flash / browser games, which can make money through the sponsorship model

- mmo's, which do best with the subscription (pay per month) model

- multiplayer competetive games, which sometimes do better with the free to play and selling in-game items model (like league of legends) but often do just fine with the selling games model too (starcraft 2, etc.)

- facebook and iphone games, which can do well with free to play

but most of the time people thinking up these new monetization models don't actually make any of those particular categories of game, they make downloadable single player games for the PC. and for that category of game, selling it is pretty much the only thing that has been shown to work

[Muz]

i think that generally those concerned too much with new monetization models would make more money if they were instead concerned by making their games better and just selling them in a traditional way

I don't think anyone is concerned too much; it just takes like a few weeks at most to think this through. There have to be a few fools on the front line who take a gamble of new monetization methods.

Different monetization methods can't be slapped on an existing game, they have to be built into the design. And 'making games better' isn't something you do over a couple weeks, unlike thinking of monetization methods

Zynga/Evony makes money off the pay to win model. EA makes money off selling expansions (and EA is the most successful thus far).

You can build a game that charges for replays, but you have to design the game in such a way that you're not charging them at the point when they're most likely to stop playing.

Also, now that I think of it, every time I read stuff by cliffski and jeff vogel, they were complaining about how the traditional model doesn't work. Except recently when jeff has accepted that he's just going to make what comes to him.

[True Valhalla]

Sorry, yes when I said traditional model I was referring to simply slapping a price tag on a game.

- flash / browser games, which can make money through the sponsorship model

- mmo's, which do best with the subscription (pay per month) model

- multiplayer competetive games, which sometimes do better with the free to play and selling in-game items model (like league of legends) but often do just fine with the selling games model too (starcraft 2, etc.)

- facebook and iphone games, which can do well with free to play

This combination of platforms make up a very large portion of the gaming market today, possibly even the majority. When I think of monetization, single-player desktop games don't even come to mind.

Developers looking to make money without relying on "that one big hit" that so few manage to achieve will find more realistic success with Flash games, browser games, or apps, and much quicker than they will with single-player desktop games.

So sure, if we're looking from your perspective - I'd agree - spend more time making a better desktop game and stick to the limited monetization models that actually work. But these other platforms are where the real money is for indies, where the playing field is more level, and where the monetization of your game is extremely important.

I work on my desktop MMO, Myriad Online, which will be free to play with a cash shop.
I work on my HTML5 games, and license them to publishers across the world.
I work on my apps, which let me experiment with all sorts of monetization methods.

All of these projects require me to think very specifically about how I will monetize them.

But I don't work on a single-player desktop game. Because the monetization options are so very, very limited, and because it is not an attractive option for indies looking to make money.

While I understand what you're saying, our comments were made from two very different viewpoints.

[Uykered]

http://forums.indiegamer.com

I've heard from people here that "indiegamer" is a better forum for casual game makers (people who are more into the business than the art).

[moi]

it's not very good anymore, there are more spammers than active members nowadays

[True Valhalla]

http://forums.indiegamer.com

I've heard from people here that "indiegamer" is a better forum for casual game makers (people who are more into the business than the art).

I find it interesting that the business-orientated devs would be considered "casual game makers"

[airman4]

i think that generally those concerned too much with new monetization models would make more money if they were instead concerned by making their games better and just selling them in a traditional way

Maybe it's hard to get a game off the ground nowadays?

You can come here and make a game wich is better than mythical games , doing something total new and get totally ignored.
Sometimes people buy new stuff they don't know but most of the time they avoid it.
Since people buy always the stuff they know (mario games, valve games , FPS war games , shooter and shooter) , some other have to think about new way of earning money.

If you come here and sell some new game in the old way , not sure it's works , it could but honestly...

[bateleur]

Regarding the actual proposal concerning paying for lives: the appeal of this for me as a customer would depend on when the game killed me. It could work really well in a game where I have good control over the level of risk I experience. So, for example, I can take on a boss monster that has some treasure I want, knowing that if I mess up I'll die and need to buy another life.

If the game ever just randomly killed me or I ever died in a fight or from an event that felt unfair then that would be bad.

Incidentally, I assume the player would always be free to start a new game without paying?

[airman4]

Regarding the actual proposal concerning paying for lives: the appeal of this for me as a customer would depend on when the game killed me. It could work really well in a game where I have good control over the level of risk I experience. So, for example, I can take on a boss monster that has some treasure I want, knowing that if I mess up I'll die and need to buy another life.

If the game ever just randomly killed me or I ever died in a fight or from an event that felt unfair then that would be bad.

Incidentally, I assume the player would always be free to start a new game without paying?

Yeah if i manage to do a payment like this , the game will be totally free , totally
Your account , character , stuff , objects earned  etc will be saved
The only thing that will stop you from playing again is your death.

I think the best kind of game will be a Team versus online , probably a DOTA like game.

But again, everything else the cost of a live is free , free dlc and patches.

[zalzane]

probably a DOTA like game.

I hate to be the antagonist of this thread, but I'm pretty sure the last thing dota players need is another reason to treat their teammates like shit when they are new/cant pull their weight.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Developers looking to make money without relying on "that one big hit" that so few manage to achieve will find more realistic success with Flash games, browser games, or apps, and much quicker than they will with single-player desktop games.

So sure, if we're looking from your perspective - I'd agree - spend more time making a better desktop game and stick to the limited monetization models that actually work. But these other platforms are where the real money is for indies, where the playing field is more level, and where the monetization of your game is extremely important.

i still don't understand why you believe this (i mean the bold statement). could you provide some sort of evidence for this? i mean, most indies who make a living making games make single player games that are sold to users. i can't name a single famous/prominent indie game developer who makes a living from iphone for flash sponsorships games; can you? basically i think you need to back up what you are saying with some examples, because it doesn't seem even remotely true that the money is in iphone games or flash sponsorships. if it were, developers like notch, john blow, etc., would be making iphone games

(and yeah there's a minecraft pocket edition for iphone, but it came later, and he made most of his money from minecraft for the pc)

basically until someone can name a couple of indies (i mean individuals or small teams, not "indies" like zynga) who became millionaires through iphone games or selling in-game items i'm going to have to think of it as a fad

[Aedion]

Makes me think of a me of a now-dead multiplayer space game. You had a certain amount of lives, and once you lost them all your character was deleted. Usually, you'd stock up on them before heading out to PVP areas. He only let you buy them for in-game money, but I can see how buying a huge amount of them before you get perma-death would be feasible. And completely optional.

[beetleking22]

1 dollar is too much for death. I think its works if death price is  much cheaper and also the game must be a harder but not too hard.. Then you can earn some money. .. I think.

[Aedion]

Might not be too unreasonable if the death wears off after a bit.